Judge nullifies mini-dorm crackdown near San Diego State

A judge says a crackdown on “mini-dorms” near San Diego State University is illegal because two ordinances adopted by the city conflict with state housing laws, invade the privacy of renters near the campus and violate the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling this month by Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn leaves city officials and residents with no legal way to regulate mini-dorms — converted single-family homes known for late-night parties and monopolizing scarce parking.

The judge’s nullification of the ordinances, one enacted in 2008 and another enacted a year ago, are a setback for those who have been lobbying against mini-dorms since the properties first began popping up in the 1980s.

A survey by residents living near the university found that more than 800 of the roughly 4,000 dwelling units in the College Area neighborhood are mini-dorms, which have many more bedrooms than the area’s single-family homes.

Residents say investors systematically buy three- and four-bedroom houses and then remodel them into “mega” houses where they can charge high rents to students desperate for housing close to campus.

The lawsuit that nullified the city regulations was filed by a group made up mostly of mini-dorm owners – the College Area Students, Tenants and Landlords Association.

Rhea Khulman, chairwoman of the College Area Community Council, said the ruling is a major disappointment and that she’s not sure residents will lobby for new mini-dorm legislation that is more legally sound.

"That's going to be a decision the community needs to make, and at this time of year it's a little hard to predict that because people are focused on the holidays," she said.

Khulman said residents have the goal of maintaining the character of their single-family neighborhood by reining in excessively large mini-dorms, sometimes called “supersized” because they have so many bedrooms.

"We need to emphasize that the idea is not to get rid of mini-dorms or get rid of students,” she said by telephone on Thursday. “The idea is to keep the housing within a reasonable size and configuration.”

Opponents of the regulations say they ignore the root of the problem, which they contend is a lack of affordable student housing near SDSU, and go too far by trampling on property rights.

They also say residents in the area knew they were buying homes near a college campus.

Gerry Braun, a spokesman for City Attorney Mara Elliott, said Elliott will brief the City Council on the ruling at a session closed to the public early next year.

"If the City Council is interested in trying to do this in a way that doesn't run into problems, our office is ready to advise them and work with them on that," he said.

The city could also appeal Styn’s ruling.

The nullified regulations, which haven’t been in effect since Styn granted a preliminary injunction in the case in June, require a special permit when a house has six or more tenants age 18 or older living there for at least 30 days.

Owners of such houses were also required to prove the property has a number of off-street parking spots equal to at least one less than the number of residents.

The regulations applied only to properties within the College Area Community Plan.

Judge Styn, in his Dec. 1 ruling, said the regulations conflict with state laws that aim to increase the supply of affordable housing in California, and that state laws pre-empt city laws when there is a conflict.

The ruling also said the city regulations are an unlawful invasion of privacy because city officials conducted surprise inspections of mini-dorms to assess the number of tenants, parking spots and other details.

Styn said this violates the right of mini-dorm tenants to be left alone in their own homes, adding that privacy is a fundamental right that can only be violated when there is a more compelling public need than monitoring mini-dorms.

Finally, Styn said the regulations violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law by imposing rules on tenant-occupied properties that don’t apply to owner-occupied properties.